Slashdot Mirror
MSN $400 Rebate in CA and OR Stopped
djneko writes "Looks like it was the real deal with the MSN
instant rebate thing, because Microsoft pulled the deal in California and Oregon today after approximately half the state flocked to Best Buy and Office Depot to get their free toys. " I did hear from several people who got it, and others who didn't.
the 400 free was just the Beta?!?!
_________________________
Just letting ya know...
And people say that big government is useless.. Hah!
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
I laugh in microsoft's general direction. Silly goats.
~Jester
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
haha.. it's true.. i went to 4 bestbuys today around the so cal area and there were lines of 20 plus people.. it was hilarious... everything was literally looted, especially DVD players and TV's.. well i got my geeforce and a new soundblaster live! so it's all good.. thank you uncle gates!
So if MSN cannot illegally bundle products with a loan why can the cell phone comanies still do it? They build a repayment schedule into the cost of the service for the phones. Why do you think most of them have early termination clauses in the contract?
Why hasn't anyone complained about them?
It was later confirmed that they had planned to step up in $400 increments, until they rivalled some of the State lotteries in America, in an attempt to prove that all MSN subscribers were winners.
Rumours that Microsoft had sent three agents to destroy Slashdot, who's posting of the article on the deal is believed to have caused the massive take-up, were denied. In an issued statement, it was claimed that no such action was even possible, on account of there being no "Start" button.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
this is the funniest move i've seen them pull yet!
what were they thinking?!
did anyone here get in on it? what was the procedure like?
And everyone took advantage of their vulnerability and kicked them while they were down. Granted, Microsoft is not exactly the nicest company on the planet. But should we really stoop to their level?
-- Slashdot sucks.
The Silicon Valley News article touched on the debatable morality of taking advantage of a loophole like this. Personally, as much as Microsoft irritates me, and as much as I'd like to see Microsoft in a less dominant position in the marketplace, screwing them out of money this way ain't gonna make things right.
Yeah, I know, the company's worth gazillions, they can afford this mistake, and it is their own mistake. But I don't see how exploiting this loophole does anything other than steal money from them. One of the things I like about the open-source movement and Linux as an alternative to Microsoft's products is that, in the open source world, things take place in the light of day. This, though -- this is the kind of act I'd be embarassed to tell people about.
Imagine that, instead of a discount loophole, this was a security hole in an open-source program. Morally, I'd want to report it rather than exploit it.
Sargent
at any location authorised to refund unused bundled new PC software OS & Application license fees per the EULA.
Boojum
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The key differance between the OS market and the cell phone market, is that nobody has the cell phone market locked up tight.
_________________________
If Bill Gates was walking down the street handing out $400 bills (ok, 4 $100 bills), would you let him pass on by, or would you stick your hand out with the rest of us. I know what I'd do! and it ain't the moral high ground... ;)
On a more on-topic note: it seems as though this whole thing got started when Microsoft "assumed" it understood the law in question. I'm sure they have enough high-paid lawyers in their organization that they could have checked it out ahead of time. They didn't. They assumed, and we all know what that means...
Eric
Obviously, more people than myself would take Microsoft up on their "offer"; If I had lived in CA or OR, I definitely would have made it to my local Best Buy. People can spout morality of it all to the ends of the earth, but I would bet that 1/2 to 3/4 of the world's population just wouldn't care....
gimme gimme gimme!
Karnal
I kiss you!
I don't want to engage in totally mindless lawyer bashing. We need a legal system, ours is pretty good, but it is also important to remind us and them from time to time that lawyers are fallible people and they should keep that in the front of their minds when they do stuff like crush eToy.
In this case, for a change, a rapacious and immoral monopolist accidently gave back a crumb of the wedding cake it has stolen over the past decade and a half. Best cake I've had in a while!
You could probably consider "half the state flocking to Best Buy to get their free toys" a mass hack - a bunch of people exploit a rebate loophole defraud Microsoft of $400 each.
Has anyone looked around on the 'net for a Perl script that will get the rebate automatically? Some Oregon skr1pt k1dd13s can't figure how to do it manually.
yep...clear quid pro quo... from the same company that I have several (SEVERAL) copies of their software paid for that I don't use nor want. (exteme sarcasm) furthermore, there's a clear quid pro quo in the EULA...and no one's using that to take advantage of customers...nyah...(/extreme sarcasm)
This has nothing to do with Microsoft being a monopoly.
Please reread the article.
everybody hates those "free stuff for internet contract" deals anyway. maybe this will help people and businesses realize they are trash.
Cmdr Taco. I doubt you did there, because you're in Michigan... *grammar check* complete ;-)
For those of you who missed it
"I did here"
-S
Scott Ruttencutter
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
Best Buy and the others have advertisements in displaying this deal all over California. There are laws that specifically forbid companies from advertising products or services that they don't have in stock.
I don't see how Best Buy can not honor your request for the $400 rebate if you show up between now and whatever date is printed on one of their newspaper advertisements. Taking advantage of the MS loophole may be unethical, but a retailer not honoring an advertisement is akin to breaking a contract and well established legal terrain.
Of all the ideals of our modern culture, I think these are the dumbest:
"don't stoop to their level"
"if you respond in kind, you're no better than them"
"even if you know, from the evidence of your own senses, that someone is guilty of a crime, and you are in a bad situation far from your society's enforced law and order, they must be given a 'fair trial' by some authority who doesn't have first-hand knowledge"
etc.
What these have in common is that they seem to be about justice, but they're really about reserving the right to punish wrongdoers exclusively for the state. Direct action is no less moral, it just takes back power for the individual.
If someone legally, through consentual agreements, yet still against your will (for example, you neither wanted nor had any use for Windows or MS-DOS, but it's cost was unavoidably included in a computer you bought), takes your money, then you shouldn't feel bad about doing the same back to them.
It is just the same as if someone steals your car, and there are no police around to take it back (or car theft isn't illegal...); you would be fully morally justified in sneaking up and taking the car back, or in stealing other goods of equal value, or, for that matter, in beating the hell out of the prick and taking your car, and maybe whatever else he's got lying around, with a warning that next time you'll kill him (punishment has to be greater than the profit from the crime to be an effective deterrent).
However, going out and stealing someone else's car would really be stooping to their level...
Hey, this will sound totally crazy :) but what if it ***wasn't a mistake***... As in, people (wider community) get to vent some steam towards MS, community opinion changes somewhat... There's a thought. Or is MS not that smart. Yeh, probabley latter. Hmm, on second thoughts, maybe it is just crazy...
well, if you have Windows, read the "contract" that comes with the program -- it is outrageously biased in favor of Microsoft. So if they, for whatever reason, write a contract that is biased in favor of the consumer, what's wrong with taking advantage of it? Believe me, they will try to take advantage of any aspect of the contract that favors them, and they wrote it in the first place.
English is not my first language. I had to read that sentence a couple of times before it started to make sense to me.
Reading a foreign language can be difficult at times, especially when the english used is plain incorrect.
"But, Lord Bill, you said release Microsoft's wallet!" "You Fool! I said Microsoft Wallet!"
I'm sure plenty of /. readers remember the Hitachi Superscan monitor fiasco at buy.com. A weekend error on the retailer's web site listed a near-$600 19" monitor for something like $154.
Hundreds of excited shoppers and capitalists flooded buy.com with orders in an attempt to cash in on the store's mistake. A few days went by and the price was fixed, but the damage had already been done to the tune of several thousand orders.
After much confusion, buy.com announced they would fulfill the orders for the 150-some monitors they had in stock, and cancel the rest. Message boards, newsgroups, and web sites all over lit up with complaints about being "ripped off" or being caught as the victim of a bait and switch. More honest and understanding consumers (like me, of course) realized that we would be lucky to get such a great bargain, but if it fell through, we had no right to complain.
I personally placed an order for a monitor, but when I finally got a cancellation notice two weeks later, I shook it off and went on with my life. What about the people who ordered a dozen monitors and set up auctions on eBay before they even had them in their possession? Those were the guys screaming class action suit, crying that they got ripped off, and demanding justice at the hands (and pocketbook) of buy.com.
Well folks, no one got ripped off in that case. I admit in trying to get a bargain because of the error of someone else. When it fell through, I moved on with my life and kept my eyes peeled for the next poor fool to accidentally list something at one-fourth of the expected price. Best Buy and their phantom $400 rebate from Microsoft--it's the same situation.
A few lucky people took advantage early and walked out with DVD players and stereos for $400 cheaper then they should have. And thousands more were turned away before they could take advantage of a slip-up by the legal department at MS. Yeah, it would have been nice to get away with a nice bonus, however morally questionable--but when you get headed off before you can take advantage, there is no right to complain.
Microsoft and Best Buy responded in the only way we could really expect them to. If you didn't get your free money, let it go and move on. Given the continuing trend for slashed prices and instant rebates, we can expect something like this to happen again soon enough. Just be sure to take the deal before the unfortunate victim catches on!
What I should have said was nothing.
Perhaps the most persuasive argument (to me) however, is this:
- Microsoft has zillions of lawyers and accountants.
- Microsoft has zillions of executives.
- The lawyers, accountants, and executives all decided that this scam of theirs was a good idea.
- They collectively decided that this was a gamble worth taking, and they went for it.
- As so often happens in gambling, the other side (us citizens) won.
Microsoft took a shot, and they lost. Big deal. I feel no guilt in taking the money of someone that bet, and lost -- especially if they can afford it.In fact, I feel pretty good about it . . .
I have no
Let's face it; if Red Hat or Corel or Caldera offered a service deal in a loan, as Microsoft did it's MSN deal, then suddenly morality changes?
Well it doesn't. There is NO MORAL DIFFERENCE between murderring a bad man and murderring a good one. And there is no moral difference between legalized theft from a good company or a bad one.
Just because the law can't punish you doesn't mean it's somehow a correct action! If you were *allowed* to shoot Bill Gates, would you? If your answer is "no, I wouldn't do that" then consider how much it really matterred to you whether you were allowed to do something by the government!
-Ben
I hax0r th3m j3ws every year.
1) Grammar 2) Spelling is not grammar, whatever anal retentive school marms will tell you.
I love how when the story broke, Microsoft officials claimed they weren't worried since they've had so few people cancel their ISP service. Talk about clueless.
Microsoft Translation: "I have no idea what you're talking about. You are quoting legal mumbo-jumbo to me and all I hear is cracks and buzzes. Our legal team is working on something else right now, so rather than issue an inteligent comment, I'll just spout off some company rhetoric and everything will be peachy just like it always is."
Praying for the end of your wide-awake nightmare.
It's a shame how you're wasting my time and yours with this drivel -- get on with your life, get over it,
I'm over it.
And it's spelled gramm*a*r, not gramm*e*r. Who can we trust to watch the watchers?
If anyone has ever deserved to be screwed, it's Microsoft.
I went to the California San Carlos store. The line was about 5 hours long. There were no more DVD players, Dreamcasts, Speaker systems, Bookshelf system, portable CD players, and anything with the word Sony on it over $200.00. It was really funny. I have never seen anything like it before, the store was almost empty. The scam was that they only had one register open. But one of the sales associates wised up and selling the extended rebate to the people in line. But hey most people went to the Best Buy, got their stuff, while on the phone cancelling their account, went across the parking lot over to Office depot and got more stuff. The line was only a couple minutes long there it would have been shorter if the guy would have learned to type.
Ohhh, how foolish of me, I forgot -- you don't actually want to make constructive criticism, you'd rather rant and throw your little toys around.
Here's a tip that you clearly need:
The next time you feel like ranting, follow the advice above, and then try to come up with something constructive you could do to help the situation!After all, simply screaming about a "morass of half-assed-ness" doesn't really do anybody any good, and it makes you look about as appealing as the gum I just scraped off my shoe.
I have no
"Grammer Police..."
tsk, tsk, tsk...
It's an inescapable rule that those who complain about others' mistakes make one themselves in correcting them.
Now someone gets to find mine...
Chris
English isn't a foreign language. what you speak, is.
Dang. I can't find a moderation option to mark something "Hypocritical". Complaining of orthographical fiaschetti whilst committing them oneself surely merits come kind of mark-down.
If you are willing to drive there and back for $400 dollars, that is.
Then they are obligated to, unless the form is have the Nevada legalese only.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
and you suck a fat pile of shit
Grammer, eh?
... Sorry buddy, but even though you most likely didn't mean to, you gave me something to laugh at. Thanks.
... I am not saying that us "readers" are perfect, but there should be a higher expectation and/or standard placed on the people that actually run the site. After all, it speaks volumes for not only them personally, but for the professionalism of the site as well.
heh heh
For what it's worth, I believe CmdrTaco would do well to be a little more careful in the future, when it comes to adding comments. I realize that we all should be careful too
"There is NO MORAL DIFFERENCE between murderring a bad man and murderring a good one."
What if he is executed? Do you really think it's moral for the state and not for the individual? Of course not, trials and government authority and other formalities have nothing to do with morality, they are just a practical system for everyone to agree on one course of action (and hopefully the moral one).
Since you seem to be using it as a narrow example to illustrate a broad point, I'll assume you mean that for every crime, not just murder.
How about imprisoning an evil man? Taking back stolen goods?
It is not immoral to punish the guilty. However, this is not about that.
If I could legally take any amount of money (from a dollar to a billion dollars) from Bill Gates I would. Did he earn the money? Of course not, no single individual can earn such a vast fortune, and it's debatable whether he's ever done a useful and productive thing for society (as opposed to hurting society for his own profit) in his work at Microsoft. His only claim to it over mine (or anyone else's claim) is legal; he has no moral claim to this unearned fortune. Therefor, taking his money would be, at worst, a morally neutral act. Morally neutral and personally beneficial, hmm... I wouldn't have to think about it for very long.
I wouldn't shoot Bill Gates, much as I dislike him. It's not like he's a real dictator who orders his enemies tortured and murdered. It would be morally wrong to shoot him for no reason.
I'll you what... this isn't anything but the old bait - n - switch. That's right, ol Franky has seen it more than once... THIS IS THE FUCKING BAIT AND SWITCH. Those fucking bastards from Redmond think that they can just willey nilley make offers then rescind them.. WELL I'M NOT GONNA FUCKING STAND FOR IT.
I'm gonna get on the blower and tell my fucking congressman about this happy horeshit. I'm gonna fire up the old email program and start a fucking grassroots groundswell effort to put an end to this atrocity. YOU CAN'T FUCK WITH FRANK RIZZO CAUSE I'LL TRACK YOU DOWN TO THE FUCKING END OF THE EARTH AND I'LL RIP YOUR FUCKING HEART OUT.
A genius writes code an idiot can understand, while an idiot writes code the compiler can't understand.
Actually, if güero is a blond, and güera is a blonde, then you mean güerilla for a cute blonde girl--with mandatory diæresis. But this still isn't guerrilla.
If I ever charged them for the time I wasted fighting Windows, for the repeated loss of my work due to random crashes, and for the grief this product has caused me over the years, 400 dollars would only be a drop in the ocean of frustration and pain. Microsoft, I despise you with all my heart.
Ahh, the voice of experience.
...is that the people that cancel the service and receive their rebates will probably not be allowed to join MSN in the future!
They're really going to be hurting when Microsoft buys the Internet!
Ironically, to many of the potential customers Microsoft was targeting with this promotion, Windows *is* the Internet.
---- Politics: Kissing ass and pointing blames.
anyone know what office depot, staples, and officemax are saying about returning purchased items? (from what i've read it sounds like best buy was an instant rebate, and the others were mailin. does that mean bestbuy got screwed?)
--
The shareholder is always right.
Perhaps a coordinated effort could have dragged this out for months... as it was, hordes of impatient consumers got their money and got the deal stopped before giving me enough time to move to California. *sigh* Damn.
The word you are looking for is "syntax"
you know, that comment doesn't really make sense. I mean, you're trying to say that I'm the one that sucks a fat pile of shit, but the sentence you employed to do this doesn't really work. I mean, the experience from which I speak might be actually watching you suck the aforementioned shit pile. Or it might be with other shitsuckers like you. I realize you meant, takes one to know one, or something like that. But all you've proved is that you're a shitsucker.
Once again. Oh, and there's 1 R is shitsucker.
Ok, moderators. Do your job. This guy is a trolling flamebaiter.
Someone steals your car, takes a joyride, and leaves in parked out in front of my house. You find your car, knock on my door, and beat me up.
The reason society discourages undo response to a crime is that some people won't check, recheck and check again the "facts" before acting.
I'm all for a citizen stopping a crime in progress (try breaking into my home whilst I'm there, and you'll be given a very good demonstration of my belief), but if the immediate threat is over, then we should use due deliberation before action. After all, once you've beaten somebody up, you cannot "unbeat them down".
And besides, you never know if the person you are about to beat up is tougher and better trained than you.
www.eFax.com are spammers
If I'm talking about waiting for something, and spell it "weighting", then I have spelled it wrong. Therefore, it is a spelling error.
"On Thursday, the state Department of Corporations said the law doesn't apply to Microsoft."
How apt!
_____________
"The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France
I don't like microsoft any more than the next guy but why would anyone encourage another person to rip them off. It's just wrong. Not to mention you've taken a deal which can help the financially challenged get a computer and come into the information age, even if not a day late (and a dollar [400 shorter now] short).
Must be that fine christian upbringing CmdrTaco has.
Somehow, I don't think God would approve.
They are a threat to free speech and must be silenced! - Andrea Chen
Fish! LipHo
Did you forget to take it this morning?
(Staying away from the morality argument...)
Just a thought. I havent done the math, but,
regardless of how much M$ stands to lose in the
whole rebate deal, it still probably cost M$
more money to pay lawyers to make the contract,
with the loopholes in it, than it will lose on
folks taking advange of the offer in OR and CA.
Dont forget to add the cost of the rewrite of the
contract as well, as I'm sure the wording for
these 2 states will change.
This reminds me of a plan that some friends of mine used to get free CD's. You are probably familiar with BMG's offer of a 11 or 12 of CD's for the price of one. Well you get the first 7 for free (plus shipping) and then you have to buy 1 cd in the next year, at which time you get 3 or 4 more free cd's. Well, some friends of mine got the idea that they couldn't be held liable to a contract because you aren't supposed to enter into a contract with a minor. Essentially, they would take their CD's, and when they got a message about payment, they would return a jovial reply to the affect of, in different words mind you, screw you guys. I'm under 18. Have a nice day. Believe it or not, this actually worked. It's completely morally and ethically wrong but it just goes to show you that companies need to plan better for things like this.
-----
When you screw Microsoft it's not just BIll Gates you're screwing. Microsoft is a publicly held company. It's part of most of the Mutual Funds most people can choose from in their 401K plans. So I'd like to point out that a lot of morally lacking people just legally stole money from the retirement funds of millions of individuals. Justify it however you please, taking advantage of this reduces you to the level of an ambulance chaseing lawyer.
Another news that microsoft might soon learn is, that the loophole wasn't only good for ripping off $400 but also gives customers who participated in the program a cheap way out and thus an opportunity to rethink the deal. If they still think it was a good one they can even cancel the old contract and do it a second time (they even get a 'fairer' contract that way :-) ).
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Many seem to have overlooked the obvious motive in this event. Gates was looking for some free publicity (positive he hoped) but thankfully, people took advantage of it.
Second, nobody forced Microsoft to offer the deal in these two States in the first place. They did so of their own free will. If people choose to take them at their word, AND make a few bucks off it, it's a little harsh to blame the customer.
Last, but not least, there's this quote from the article: "[T]he state Department of Corporations said the law doesn't apply to Microsoft". There are a number of ways to read this, but after the Refund Day fiasco and the "Finding of Fact" in the DoJ case, none of them are terribly favourable to the Redmond crowd.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Unlike customers in most states, residents of California and Oregon were allowed to cancel the $21.95-a-month subscription and still keep the $400 because Microsoft believed that state laws required penalty-free cancellation.
- ----------
After California officials said Thursday that Microsoft misunderstood the law, the company decided to temporarily suspend the program, effective today. The suspension comes despite Best Buy advertisements that say it will continue through Feb. 29 and Office Depot ads that say it will continue until March 31.
-----------------------------------------------
Who is the moderator genius who marked this as a troll? This isn't a troll, it's a valid opinion. I mean don't let the clue bus run you over buddy. This guy might be a little crude, but I find his honosty refreshing. Learn how to moderate.
If I were to put a pricetag on the total amount of mental anguish Microsoft has caused me in the course of my career, I'd say between 4 and 6 million dollars. Several hundred thousand of that having gone toward antacids, pain killers and alcohol necessary to help me cope with their products. Therefore if Microsoft were to be offering a rebate for mental anguish for up to, say, $10 million, I'd only ask for $6 million. On the other hand, if I could squeeze $400 out of Microsoft with no strings attached, I'd feel absolutely no guilt in doing so (Unfortunately I'm not in California or Oregon.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
hilarious!
If I knew I would not be punished by the court system I would go up to him and blow his head off. I'd make sure I did it right too... at least 2 hits to the head and empty the rest of the magazine into his chest. I have no qualms about murdering that bastard (if it was legal. ;-)
Aside from all the morality and ethical arguments, I don't think it has been noted that this "deal" has been going on for many months. I remember noticing it last fall when looking at rebates for monitors. The moment it get's put on Slashdot the stores are overwhelmed with people trying to exploit it.
I just found that interesting.
Now the $400 vultures are hiding behind a legal technicality, and I see a lot of pro-legal-nitpicking sentiment here.
Face it, if you were on the receiving end, you would not be standing on the technicality!
So...
Thousands of otherwise uninterested customers signed a clearly quid pro quo contract with every intention of breaking it, so that they could pocket $400 that Microsoft never intended to give away. Why would they do that? Because they can get away with it. In a different context, you might call it looting.
Please, spare us all the bullshit hypothetical "what if Microsoft was handing out $400?" situations and the many clumsy metaphors that have been moderated +5. That's called justification, and it's a cheap technique to make yourself feel better.
You're cashing in on a technical blooper for your own personal advancement -- frankly, opportunism and exploitation are not becoming of Slashdot. If you just get off on sticking it to The Man, go deface a website or something.
My distaste for Microsoft's strong-arm tactics is as strong as the next guy's, but it's a little hard to take the moral high ground when you're fucking your best friend's wife.
404 File Not Found The requested
I wouldn't shoot Bill Gates, much as I dislike him. It's not like he's a real dictator who orders his enemies tortured and murdered. It would be morally wrong to shoot him for no reason.
But we have a reason. He IS a real dictator, who orders his partners tortured and murdered (from a business standpoint). So let's impale the turd instead of shooting him.
I think that this is just another example at Microsoft's cavalier disregard of the details. We see it all the time with their software -- there are all sorts of exploits possible because someone didn't look close enough.
It's good to see them get bitten by this legal incompentence, since they only seem to be rewarded for their programming incompetence!
here
Pronunciation: 'hir
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): hurd
Etymology: Middle English heren, from Old English hIeran; akin to Old High German hOren to hear, and probably to Latin cavEre to be on guard, Greek akouein to hear
Date: before 12th century
transitive senses
1 : to perceive or apprehend by the ear
2 : to gain knowledge of by hereing
3 a : to listen to with attention : HEED b : ATTEND ("Heed! pants. now!)
4 a : to give a legal hereing to b : to take testimony from (here witnesses)
intransitive senses
1 : to have the capacity of apprehending sound
2 a : to gain information : LEARN b : to receive communication about the FSF (haven't hurd from RMS lately)
3 : to entertain the idea -- used in the negative (wouldn't here of it)
4 -- often used in the expression Here! Here!] to express approval (as during a mad rush to get free Microsoft rebate cash)
- hereer
I think of it as a form of vigilante justice. Sometimes, that's the only kind of justice you can get, especially when your opponent has billions of dollars to spend on lawyers.
As for shooting Bill Gates... I don't think I would, even if I were allowed. However I count up the damages inflicted on me, none of them include 'loss of life or limb'. Even the strictest of rules, the eye for an eye rule, dictates that such an action would be unjust.
I think the person who used corporate speak justification had it exactly right. When corporations learn to play by rules of morality as well as the written ones, then I will also play by those rules in dealing with them.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
When you're a Slashdotter who is both cheap and unethical, you can find all sorts of things to do to save money! Other favorite Slashdotter activities:
So get out there, Slashdotters, and put your lack of ethics to work for you! Without a moral code, the only thing holding you back from saving hundreds, nay, thousands of dollars is your own imagination! There are just so many people out there and companies willing to trust people, and now's your chance to show them what suckers they are for ever having that idea. Go get 'em, boys!
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
You say If you didn't get your free money, let it go and move on
Occasionally, funny orders are placed in the stock market by people accidentally keying in the wrong orders. In most cases, if the trade goes through and the result doesn't bankrupt the system, the stock market usually allows the trade and forces the *ahem* sucker to pay up.
If I, having not been told about a mispriced monitor on buy.com, browsed their site and went "aha! what a bargain!" and ordered a monitor that subsequently didn't arrive because of a pricing mistake, I would be majorly pissed off. IANAL but I would dare say buy.com could be forced in court to honour the transaction.
And lo, God looked down and said... Consider yourself judged.
The generally agreed upon morality surrounding making a consensual deal between two parties of roughly equal power is that it is each party's responsibility to look out for its own interests; you don't owe it to the other guy to tell him he's making a bad deal. Now, when one party is more powerful than the other, the moral issue may be more complicated by the possibility of the strong party coercing the weak party into making a bad deal (and as I read the explanation, this was precisely the reason for the CA and OR laws prohibiting tying a loan to purchasing a service in the first place), but in this case Microsoft is clearly the strong party, so I don't think those issues apply here.
At the end of the day, Microsoft made one kind of deal (i.e., handing out $400 with no strings attatched in OR and CA), and it wanted to pretend it had made another (i.e., buying 3 years of MSN was required). A theory of morality in which the moral position of taking advantage of the deal they actually made is comparable to the moral position of murdering someone and getting away with it through a legal loophole is at best peculiar, and certainly not in line with the generally accepted theory.
-r
After all, they've got lawyers smart enough to solve that problem.
I'd be laughing my ass off at all the people who thought they were scamming Microsoft out of $400, who ended up actually paying that $400. Live by the technicality, die by the technicality!
Nobody says that you have to take part in those deals. For the people who want to, it is a great deal. If they're going to be paying 20 bucks a month for an ISP anyway, which millions have been doing for years now, what's wrong with getting 400 dollars back?
Maybe you could also call up all the fast food joints and tell them to stop selling the items that "g0deatr" doesn't like. If it's not good for g0deatr, it can't be good for anyone.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Microsoft pays a fleet (school?) of laywers a great deal of money to make sure that their contracts are valid in the jurisdictions where they are offered. Ensuring that a hole like this doesn't happen is the job of those lawyers and the nature of contracts.
Now he lawyers messed up and the company looses some money. Next time the company will be more careful and will hire betters laywers. Business is one of that truely Darwinian environments -- Businesses that do poor business go out of business.
hear hI<e>(r), v. Pa. t. and pa. pple. heard h3:rd. Forms: Inf. 1 híeran, hyran, héran, 2-5 heren, 4-5 heere(n, 3-6 here, 6-7 heare, 6- hear; also 3 (Lay.) hæren, (Orm.) herenn, 3-4 heoren, 3-5 s.w. hure(n, 4 hyere(n, hiere(n, 4-5 hir(e, s.w. huyre, Sc. heyre, 4-6 her, hyre, 5 2nd sing. harst; Sc. 5-6 heire, 5- heir. Pa. t. 1 híerde, hyrde, hérde, 2-6 herde, 4-6 herd, hearde, 4- heard; also 3 heorde, (Orm.) heorrde, 3-4 herede, 3-5 hirde, hurde, 3-6 harde, 4-7 (Sc. -9) hard. Pa. pple. 1 (asg)ehíered, -hyred, -héred, 2 hered, 2-6 herd, 6- heard; also 3 (Orm.) herrd, heorrd, 3-5 hurd, 4 y-hyerd, 5 y-herd, 4-6 harde, 4-7 (Sc. -9) hard.
Etymology: Com. Teut. vb.: OE., early WS. híeran, late WS. hyran, Anglian héran (:-*héarjan) = OFris. hêra, hôra (:-*hôrja) (WFris. hearren, Satl. hêra), OS. hôrjan, hôrean (MLG., MDutch hôren, Dutch hooren), OHG. hôrren (MHG. hoeren, Ger. hören), ONor. heyra (Norw. höyra, Sw. höra, Da. höre), all:-*haurjan = Goth. hausjan:-OTeut. *hauzjan. Beside the simple vb., OE. had, like the other old Teutonic langs., the compound (asg)ehíeran (Goth. gahausjan) in the same sense, but perhaps with greater implication of completeness of action. In some uses (asg)ehíeran was more frequent in OE. than the simple vb., so that the latter is rare or not evidenced; it occurs more frequently in Old Northumbrian, and becomes commoner after 1200, perhaps under Norse influence. The pa. pple. in (asg)e-, in early ME. southern dialect, may belong to either verb. See yhere. [ Cognates of hauzjan outside Teutonic are unknown. Conjectures of its relationship to the root auz- ear, to L. audire, and Gr. akouein, are all extremely doubtful.]
1 a intr. To perceive, or have the sensation of, sound; to possess or exercise the faculty of audition, of which the specific organ is the ear. The proper verb to express this faculty or function.
b to hear of both ears , not to hear of that ear (see ear sb.[1] 3 d), on that side (see quot. 1617).
2 a trans. To perceive (sound, or something that emits or causes sound); to have cognizance of by means of the ear or auditory sense.
b predicated of the ear.
c not to hear day nor door : not to hear anything distinctly. Sc.
3 a As with other verbs of perception, the subst. or pronominal object may be followed by an inf., pres. pple. (orig. vbl. sb. with a-), or pa. pple., expressing an action performed or suffered by it. [ The infin. now takes to after the passive, but not after the active vb.: we heard him groan; he was heard to groan. But exceptions to both rules are to be met with: see P]
b Hence, by ellipsis of such objects as people, persons, some one, before the infinitives say, speak, talk, tell, the phrases to hear say , hear tell , etc., of which some are still in dialectal or colloquial, and occasionally literary, use. Formerly also with pa. pple., as to hear told (obs.).
c Hence the gerundial phrase (by) hearing say , (by) hearing it said (by) hearsay. Obs. or dial.
d to like to hear oneself speak, talk (and similar phrases): to be fond of talking; to hear oneself think : usu. in neg. contexts, not to be able to think because there is too much noise going on.
4 To exercise the auditory function intentionally; to give ear, hearken, listen. a intr.
b trans. To listen to (a person or thing) with more or less attention or understanding; to give ear to, hearken to; to give audience to. Orig. with dative of the person or thing. to hear out , to listen to to the end: see out; to hear out : also, to distinguish (the sounds of something heard).
c With two objects, as to hear (one) his lessons : to listen to the recitation of his lessons.
5 a trans. To attend and listen to (a lecture, sermon, play, musical performance, etc.); to form one of the audience at.
b `To be a hearer of; to sit under the preaching of; as, what minister do you hear? (A colloquial use of the word.)' Webster, 1828. Also absol.
6 trans. To listen to judicially in a court of law; to give (one) a hearing; to try (a person or a case).
7 a To listen to with compliance or assent; to accede to, grant (a request or prayer). Chiefly in scriptural use.
b to hear of , with will (would) and negative: to refuse to listen to, entertain the notion of, consent to, or permit.
c to hear to , to listen to, to hear of. U.S.
8 To obey. Obs. (Only OE., ME., and arch.) Orig. with dative.
9 intr. To be subject (to); to belong. Obs. So MHG. hoeren, beside gehoeren.
10 a trans. To learn or get to know by hearing; to receive or obtain as information; to be told; to be informed of.
b with obj. clause.
11 a absol. or intr. To be informed, learn; to receive information or tidings of, or obtain news concerning; to receive a message or letter from. Also, (pregnantly) to receive a reprimand from.
b to hear of it : to be spoken to about it; to be called to account for it. colloq.
c to have heard of : to have become or been made aware of (a fact, etc.) in the course of one's experience; to have heard tell of. Freq. in negative contexts, often with never.
12 a To be reported or spoken (well or ill) of. After Gr. eu, kakwj akouein, L. bene, male audire.
b to hear rather : to prefer to hear, to prefer to be addressed or called. (A Latinism.)
13 a The imperative hear! , now usually repeated, hear! hear! (formerly hear him! hear him! ) is used as an exclamation to call attention to a speaker's words, and hence has become a general expression of approbation or `cheering'. [ It is now the regular form of cheering [cheer sb.[1] 8] in the House of Commons, and expresses, according to intonation, admiration, acquiescence, indignation, derision, etc. ]
b Hence as sb. hear, hear ! (formerly hear- him ), a cheer. Also hear-hear v. intr., to shout `hear! hear!'; trans., to acclaim with shouts of `hear! hear!'; to cheer. Hence hear-'hearer .
I personally think these rebates from dialup providers (MSN, Compuserve, etc...)when you sign up for a 3 year contract are immoral. They are designed to take advantage of short-sigted or uninformed users.
Here's what I see happening. Within a year, broadband will be almost universal, and web pages will start getting more bloated. These people stuck in these contracts have three choices: Keep using dialup (may become impossible soon due to bloat), pay back the money (they may not be able to afford that upfront, because the people who buy a computer because they can get $400 off for signing up are the people who can't afford one otherwise). The third choice is they keep paying for the dialup but don't use it.
In all three scenarios the dialup provider wins. If the customer keeps paying, but uses the service less or not at all, they can keep fewer modems up, and still take the same gross income. If they use the service for the contract, it extends a dying business for another 3 years, which is plenty of time to take profits and get out for the big companies. If the customer pays back the sum and cancels, for whatever duration the customer had the service, they were paying something above prime rate on the "rebate" and the company still makes out like a bandit.
These rebates, no matter how they are handled, cost the customer far more than they gain. If a big company does something, it is done for just one reason, to make money. Sometimes directly, and sometimes not, but all the same, the bottom line is the motivator.
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
Julie Stewart (Assistant Commissioner of the CA Dept. of Corporations) was quoted in today's LA Times as saying "We don't know why they're doing this. It is not a loan, it is a rebate program." I think that Julie Stewart works for us, the people of the State of California and not for Micro$oft and should have our best interest in mind and not Micro$oft. State officials were alse quoted as saying that they had no authority over Micro$oft under any interpretation of the law. Fine, if Micro$oft is a Washington company, then the State of California should look out for our interest and not theirs. Why dont we give Julie Stewart a call at (916) 323-7120 (Office Number) and let her know how we feel.
Let's say a loophole like this was found in m$ offers around the world. And one day, everyone lined up and started taking M$ for all it was worth. Literally. And M$ couldn't cancel in time. And they went out of business. That would be fucking great! The world would be a better place! Any step in that direction would be a good thing.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Microsoft new what they were doing. They took this risk hopping no one would notice and so that the $400 'loans' would not show up as 'expenses' on their account sheets. Keeping thier inflated number looking good, thier stock going up.
Why would you use a product that you say is so bad? I guess you are stupid.
Oh yeah, you are FORCED to. Right.
Hey, you know, some people are more concerned about the information being presented than the "professionalism". Does it really mean that much to you that everything look prim and proper, and if so, who exactly are you trying to impress with this professionalism? Who do you need to prove this to?
This site is for geeks and by geeks, and anybody who feels so strongly about grammar and spelling might as well go hang out in alt.prissy.poser.nag
Seriously though, does it really matter? Personally i don't feel i've got to impress anybody, and i don't think slashdot should need to prove it's professionalism to anybody.
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
For the sake of argument, lets say I agree with your reasoning. However, your argument would only apply to someone who bought a computer preinstalled with Windows and immediately reformated and installed another operating system. Are there lots of people like that out there? Yes (although I've kept a windows partition on every linux box I have running, personally). Do you think this describes most of the people waiting in line at Best Buy to get their "free" DVD player? I don't think so.
[Notices shelves full of bright boxes]
Microsoft software! Visual Basic Std.Ed., and other 'computer-enhancing' packages, and even a copy of BOB left all alone in the bargain bin here. Aww. Cashier? How much is all that going to cost me?'
A bit like being in a casino. Make a small win, and you are encourage to spend it the same place. If MS has a stockpile of discounted software two feet from the till, then they could be sure of some people paying it straight back, and perhaps with some of their money as well!
Being an happily ex-salesperson (I couldn't stand the morally bankrupt ways I was encouraged to sell things), you would be surprised how effectively that works...
Now that is media power!
This is simply poetic justice.
No, anyone who has bought a computer in the last decade has had their choices dramatically restricted by Microsoft's rackettering practices and market dominance. The damage that Microsoft has done is much wider than merely the cost of unused licences.
$400 is just the tip of the iceberg.
No. People are responsible for their actions. They are responsible for the money managers they choose, and the managers are accountable for the stocks they pick.
They knew what they were buying when they bought that MSFT.
*Whom* can we trust to watch the watchers?
Whilst.
except when they screw up :)
Even if it were a spelling error, it wouldn't be one that most automated spelling checkers could catch.
Remember, the word itself is not misspelled; it's simply used in the wrong context (in place of what happens to be its own homonym). That makes it a syntax error.
I will say this...
This is probably the fastest Micro$oft has fixed a hole in history.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Either you're over-reacting for the sake of effect, or you seriously need to examine your priorities. This is a minor issue of contract law in two states. If this genuinely makes you sick, then I pity you for your lack of understanding. Every year around the world, millions die from wars, malnutrition, and easily curable diseases. Get some perspective.
You can get $400 worth of free stuff at MicroCenter, IF you have another $1000 you're willing to invest in ETRADE stuff.
The deal, extended through the end of January, is this: you buy $400 worth of stuff of MicroCenter. At checkout time you ask for the ETRADE deal. They give you a special application form, and you open an account at ETRADE for $1000 or more. You can put that money into anything you want, including any mutual or money-market fund.
A couple of months later (after they've verified that you haven't returned all your MicroCenter stuff), they give you a $400 ETRADE credit. Unless I've misread the info, you can't lose.
One more caveat: you must keep the ETRADE account for one year. New accounts only. Gee, I sound like a spam, but I'm not.
The bottom line is this deal was legitimate and people took advantage of it. I'd have done the same thing if I lived in California or Oregon, and don't consider myself worse-off, morally, for saying so.
On a somewhat related note, however, I'm starting to question the morality and intelligence of all those that are asking "would you do this if it was RedHat offering the rebate?" Since money is money, I certainly would accept the $400 offered, and I don't see how appealing to my love of Linux versus my dislike of Microsoft would have anything to do with that.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I am, as of this very moment, kicking myself for not running out and taking advantage of this sooner. I held off because they said the offer was valid until march 31. Can they do that? They specifially advertised to me that I could do this, and now they won't. Like someone commented on the first story about how he got a better computer becasue the ad didn't mention limited quantites and they were out of stock on the advertised one.
As for the moral issue, I figure microsoft owes me for all the time I wasted fixing stupid windows problems, deleting 4 of my 5 com1's, etc. When I worked tech support, I would curse these problems and dream about how I could solve most of them with either modprobe of ifconfig. I want BLOOD! err... um, I mean MONEY!
So, hooray for people using a legal loophole to take advantage of a Microsoft rebate. Are you the same people who attack and flame other people's LEGAL attempt to get over (i.e. Amazon's double click patent)?
I think that this shows that most people here are not bound by principle, but rather what is best for them personally.
Think a little..."here" is spelled fine if you are talking about a place. Grammar checkers might catch the mistake, but what really needs to happen is that people slow down and re-read/re-think their post before they send it, including yourself.
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
This is crap. It does nothing to help the "financially challenged.", it actually HURTS them by persuading them to spend money on something they can't afford.
Let's do the math, shall we?
In order to get the $400 rebate, you have to spend $21.95 per month for THREE YEARS. That's
21.95 * 12 * 3 = $790.20
Now, the more astute may claim that they get $400 back, but they don't really, because they have to pay for the merchandise. So they're locked into paying almost $800 for $400 worth of merchandise, and get locked into an overpriced internet account.
If these people can't afford $21.95 per month for internet access without the rebate, then they can't afford it with the rebate. If they truly need internet access, they should check with their local Freenet, or go with an ISP that provides metered usage (there are ISP's that offer metered usage from $9.95 per month.)
Direct action is no less moral, it just takes back power for the individual.
Try telling that to a few 'individuals' who end up being lynch mob victims. "Direct action" sounds like the tactics that the Ku Klux Klan used very successfuly not that long ago.
"The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest."
-- G'Kar in TV's Babylon 5
To me, taking advantage of a $400 screwup in a company worth billions, which has regarlly ignored any and all pretense of the law in squashing competition, and makes my life a living hell from time to time, sounds just fine.
Morality isn't a science. It doesn't come down to rules like "The end doesn't justify the means" (as a friend of mine once said, very often the end is part of the means) or "Two wrongs don't make a right" (that would invalidate all forms of punishment). I can't give you a logic proof, but I do not see one damn thing wrong with giving Microsoft back a little of what they've happily dished out in the past.
Consider it payment on a loan.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
So Microsoft has pulled the plug on the program. A lot of people (including a few that I know) scored big on the program with new monitors, video cards, hard drives, memory, etc., etc.
;)
If Microsoft puts out a press release tomorrow stating all who signed one of these MSN Instant Rebate deals must take their "purchases" back, who is really going to do it? They had a -valid legal agreement- with Microsoft. (Yes, I have seen this contract for myself and read the one page form that is signed and returned.) They agreed that for $400 instant credit at these retailers, they would -try- MSN for three years. It also explicitly said that there was no charge or damages incurred for canceling early. So, legally, I would say that Microsoft would end up with a big class action lawsuit on their hands for violating all these contracts.
The other question I have is, if you saw this come to your state, why wouldn't you take advantage of this deal? Is it a "loophole" that places moral beliefs in question? Of course not. It's legal from beginning to end and wasn't even a loophole. It was clearly stated what everyone was receiving on both sides of the fence. Just because Microsoft didn't think this through, does that mean you should be looking out for their best intrest? I myself would say, "Hell no. Gimme that TV."
It's legal high tech looting
Failure isn't falling. Failure is staying down.
Reasonably easy: I called (1) (800) 386-5550, and picked the cancellation choice from the menu.
;)
Was on hold for ~ 15 mins.
They asked for my Credit Card #, Name, Address.
I told them I wanted to cancel, they said OK, was this with a promotion? I said yes, from Best Buy, and then they asked why.
I told them that my Windows box kept crashing
They said OK, and that was it.
I called the bank which issued me the card and asked them to refuse charges by the Microsoft Network. Just in case.
Whee!
Microsoft has used similar arguments themselves in the past when legal proceedings threatened to delay the release of their products (Windows 95, if I recall correctly). They would argue that delaying the release of their product would be harmful to the business of a significant number of other companies, who were basing their business strategies on the release on (product x).
On the BillWatch site, Case Roole has quite eloquently dubbed this practice "hostage taking". (Unfortunately, this is from some of Case's older essays, which no longer appear to be on the site).
I think the meme fits quite nicely.
I am justified in killing someone in self defense if I fear for my life. Would you shoot some knife wielding guy that breaks into your house at 3am? I would.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I find the concept of sports starts as heros a major
failing of society in the US today. With physical ability the prime
factor neede for exelling in a sport, some children may never
realize theur dreams and suffer from low self esteem. Considering
themselves as failures in a world where a score of 65 in a
basketball game earns more publicity than a scientific. This is
indeed a sad affair.
/dTd
When you screw Microsoft it's AOL you're helping. AOL is a publicly held company. It's part of most of the Mutual Funds most people can choose from in their 401K plans. So I'd like to point out that a lot of clever people just legally contributed money to the retirement funds of millions of individuals. Justify it however you please, taking advantage of this raises you to the level of an charitable contributor.
M$ is famous for their legalistic outlook on everything. I would bet beans to bullets some bright light in Redmond saw an opportunity to get a tax-writeoff if they framed this rebate differently. Their forms show they knew they were at risk in CA and OR. So they knew exactly what could happen; they must have assumed there was some advantage to trying a different kind of rebate from everyone else.
In other words, they were trying to drive their usual truck thru some legal loophole, and hoping they could get away with it.
Too bad for them that the net found a bigger truck, in the form of smart consumers out for a bargain.
I have no sympathy for M$ here. The law has no morals. M$ was out to screw the system thru a loophole and got out-screwed. Too bad, so sad.
--
Infuriate left and right
This little topic was brought up on a message board I was at yesterday. The fact is that in order to get the $400 MSN instant rebate at Best Buy you had to give them your Social Security number with your credit card. I don't know the last time anyone was asked to give their SS when purchasing anything. This might have been a safety precaution but MS could stab you back with this info. Wouldn't that kind of info be more valuable to them than a mere $400? I think this is going to back fire on a lot of people in the near future. I'm kind of glad I didn't take part in this madness.
just that they are paying an obscene amount of money for it.
;-) Did any moral customer lose any slepep then? Moooooo-rality
:P~~
Many of you are debating morality and ethics and what-nots. But I see this scenario is the same one as the long distance telephone companies offered a while ago in the US. MCI, AT&T and Sprint sent out millions of checks of amounts from USD $20.00-150.00 just to convince people to switch to their plans. There WAS no debate of morality or ethics then (at least to my knowledge) when people jumped Jumping from one long distance carrier to the next one to take advantage of the deal. Cashing out those checks DID cost the companies some money. The competition was so fierce that the cost did not mean much and they littered my mail boxes with checks
Now Microsoft basically wants you to test out their MSN service since they can not convince people to click on that icon on their win98 desktop. Well duh, it is going to cost MS 400 bucks to get my name, address, credit card number and SSN. Obviously about 10,000 people have bitten, including yours truly.
Morality, Moooooo-rality
Da GooFie
goofie at bluelight dot nu
hear hear!
I've been pissed at these companies since this "rebate" scheme first started. I'm more than happy to get my new HP printer on Microsoft.
The way stores advertize this $400 off as if it's in the clear is very deceptive. It's just flat out trickery. The fact that one of them (which just happens to be my least favorite monopoly) messed up with their rules, makes me happy...
So, the Office Max on Cornell in Beaverton, OR (right off Hwy 26) still has all their stuff going about this. (as of 1:00PM Friday) So, if you're in the Portland area, I'd suggest playing "Go Screw Microsoft" at Office Max.
nice new emachine celeron 400 with DVD!
thanks, bill.
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
He is justified by the obviousness of the harm Billy G has caused the computer industry, the 15 years he has held back a technology with all of its benefits to mankind, and the fact that he has absolutely no taste.
These faults alone justify blowing the fucker's brains out. To bad we didn't do it in time to save that streatch of land in Washington from being defaced with that monstrosity he calls a house.
Give that Anonymous Comrade judicial immunity, a shotgun, and a medal, I say. Viva la revolucion!
Most people have heard the phrase, "caveat emptor", usually translated as "let the buyer beware". What most don't realize is that the same applies equally to the seller.
Yes, a lot of people went out with the express purpose of taking advantage of Microsoft's slip-up. Consider, however, that it was Microsoft's slip-up. If you're going to sell something, and you ask a price far below the item's fair market value, and you wind up with six hundred people all demanding the right to buy it as advertized, it's too late for you to go back and fix the price. By advertizing, you've implicitly created a contract to sell at the stated price, and if you refuse to do so when a customer comes in with legal tender, you're breaking the law.
Microsoft had ample opportunity to check with legal experts in California and Oregon on whether or not they had the right to expect back their $400 should someone choose to sign up for MSN with the intent of cancelling it. Now, if they did check, and someone told them that yes, they couldn't get their money back, then it's the fault of the person that gave them incorrect advice. However; if they didn't check; or they checked, got told they could ask for their money back, and then worded the fine print as they did "just in case", it's their own fault that they got bilked.
Anyone remember the military jets that Pepsi had to give away? For those that don't, Pepsi had a promotional deal called PepsiPoints for a while, with the slogan, "Buy Pepsi, Get Stuff". While this ran, they aired a television commercial showing off several items that one could get free from Pepsi by cashing in a certain number of points. One of the items shown was, I believe, an F-16, listed as "700 Million Points". Two trading conglomerates immediately began buying PepsiPoints and accepting donations in order to acquire the jets. Ultimately, Pepsi had to contract with McDonald Douglas to build non-security-violating versions of the aircraft in order to legally uphold their end of the bargain when one of the trading groups actually succeeded in accumulating the 700 million PepsiPoints.
A similar incident occured when Burma-Shave, many many years ago, advertized on the side of the road, "Free! Free!/A Trip To Mars!/For 900/Empty Jars!/Burma-Shave". One dedicated couple actually acquired 900 empty jars and took them to Burma-Shave for their trip to the Red Planet. It was only then that the company realized it had to honor its side of the bargain. In the end, they agreed to send the couple on a trip to Mars, Germany, I believe, but they did have to honor their implicit contract.
Microsoft made a mistake when it advertized what it did, yes. I don't dispute that. This does not mean that the people who showed up to take advantage of Microsoft's error are in the wrong for so doing. The mistake is Microsoft's, not that of those who managed to get a good deal.
I'm not really a coward, just not at home ;( But my point is: This is a great example of how Slashdot can actually ruin something. I knew about this deal, in fact a friend of mine got a monitor this way. I was waiting to see if it actually worked before I risked $400. But now that Slashdot put this story out, and every geek in CA and OR went out to take advantage of MS's stupidty, MS pulled the plug. We all loose. To sum it up: does Slashdot ever consider the negitive impact publishing a story might have?
Pepsi refused to award the jet. The guy sued and the judge sided with Pepsi. Nothing was awarded, no Harrier jet, no cash value of a Harrier jet.
Read up here: http://www.courttv.com/people /1999/0806/pepsi_ap.html
The judges comment was that, "no objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier jet."... the sicko perverts might actually enjoy it.
Say no to software patents.
...you can chose not to invest in a risky company such as Microsoft. If Microsoft turns sour, it's you, the fundmanager, who screwed your own customers. It's not MSFT's ennemies nor MSFT's competitors faults. After all, by now it should be public knowledge that MSFT isn't loved by everybody, and astute fund manager should take that fact into account in their risk calculations.
Say no to software patents.
...was not just a paltry $400. No, at current valuations it's more like 100K. And people were litterally falling over each other last summer to get it. So, your hypothetical example already has happened, and the vast majority of people who could decided to take the money.
Say no to software patents.
Well, technically, due to the loss that this caused to them, methinks they'll get their tax writeoff...
Say no to software patents.
It's utter bullshit. The market determines worth, not a few thousand dollars in lost revenue.
Sorry for the intensity but this is Microsoft we're talking about. They have put large amounts of effort on licensing contracts made with "partners" to be sure they have holes in them so MSFT can benefit. This is a small, very small, payback. I'm only sorry I didn't get down to the store quick enough to take advantage of it. I'll have to wait another day for a chance to screw MSFT back.
Locutus
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Where are the Grammar Police when you need them?
...undo...
%s/o/ue
Yeah, so what? If MSFT were to become a penny stock tomorrow the world would keep turning. If any Mutual Fund is so heavily invested in MSFT that the fund is dependant on MSFT doing well then the managers of that fund aren't doing their job. If an individual investor is betting everything they have on MSFT, they get what they get. It's been good for a while, but they should know by now that past perforance does not guarantee future success.
If that's the best arguement you can come up with, don't bother posting.
The reason MS canceled the offer instead of sueing a bunch of people is that they realized they were offering a deal which was better for the customer than for MS, at least in CA and OR.
People make unbalanced deals all the time. Ideally each party thinks they are getting a slightly better deal than the other guy. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Other times one party thinks they are getting a really good deal and the other party thinks they are getting a good enough deal to go ahead with the trade. That seems to be what was happening. Then MS realized they were loosing money and stopped offering the deal.
Sometimes people will point out that a deal is unfair instead of taking advantage of it, but there is no ethical obligation to do so. It's just that sometimes people are nice to one another. This seems to happen more often between strangers or people who have had what they consider to be good trades with the other party. Few people are sympathic to MS. Bummer for MS. Next time they should do more homework.
I live in Southern Oregon(Meth, err, Medford to be exact). This stuff is ALL OVER the place here. Buy a $500 computer, send in the rebate, so now it's a $100 Celery 333 with a 66 MHz bus, 32 MB RAM, and an "AGP" 8 MB Video Card that for all we know is probably 64-bit. Medford's full of dumb-asses when it comes to computers though, so lots of people buy this stuff.
Oh, wait, I should have quit my job because they forced my to use Windows..that's right. You're so k3wl.
I have my own moral system and don't rely on the law/government to tell me what is right and wrong. Just because you can get away with something or the goverment says it's legal doesn't make it right. There are countless things that are legal that I personally find morally reprehensible.
You really have to ask yourself why bother being moral at all? I mean, if nobody is going to punish you for doing something, then why have reservations about doing it? I can go knock-up a half dozen chicks and walk away from it and the law won't do anything about it, that doesn't mean it's right.
I don't do that because I have self-respect and respect for others. Not robbing a bank doesn't constitute being a moral person. Turning in a wallet full of cash you found in a parking lot does. Who you really are is best defined by what you do when nobody is looking.
We all judge people by their actions. I try to avoid doing things that would cause others to judge me harshly. No matter how you slice it, if you take advantage of something like this, you will lose credibility in my eyes.
If I spill hot coffee in my lap, I don't sue McDonalds just because I can. Why? Because it's below me, I think it is wrong. It doesn't matter if everybody else thinks it is ok...I have to answer to myself. I have little respect for those who feel it's morally right to take advantage of Microsoft and I wouldn't be bragging about it when you come to my company looking for a job.
most of us don't have a pole stickup up our asses
sounds like you did d little "experimenting" at that all boys school if you know what I mean.
You cannot refuse charges, you can only refute them on a credit card.
I gotta use that one of these days. I just about fell outta my chair.
Really. It's unbecoming. I missed out too, but this was obviously not something that everyone can get a shot at, because everyone would.
There's a press release on the Microsoft site now. It's also a publicity loss for them -- those who took advantage of the deal mostly loathed Microsoft to begin with, and I'm already seeing the resentment from those who missed out.
Bold section is my emphasis --
You are not obligated to continue as an MSN Internet Access member for any particular length of time; however, if for any reason whatsoever you do not continue for the period of time associated with the rebate that you have elected to receive, you agree that you will repay MSN the amount of the rebate immediately upon termination or cancellation of your MSN Internet Access account; provided that if you are a resident of California or Oregon you will not be required to repay the rebate amount.
--
Infuriate left and right
Please, spare us all the bullshit hypothetical "what if Microsoft was handing out $400?" situations and the many clumsy metaphors that have
been moderated +5. That's called justification, and it's a cheap technique to make yourself feel better.
you're absolutely right, it is a justification. i don't think a justification is required here.
personally, i would have happily gone down to the best buy if i had time to do so last week and taken $400 of micros~1's money. gladly. unfortunately i did not have had time. in fact, i would have been happy to cost micros~1 $400 even if i had not gained financially in any way. i will happily do anything i can to put micros~1 out of business. micros~1 has done too much harm to others, especially those of us in the tech sector, to let them continue doing so unchallenged.
if micros~1 were to change their manner of treating other people/companies, i would be happy to coexist with them in a non-confrontational manner. until then, i consider it to be a worthwhile service to society to do all i can to put micros~1 out of business.
-----
reflector
posting anonymously so i can moderate this discussion.